A handful of quality NFL starters remain available in free agency, but for the most part clubs have switched gears toward April's draft. Approaching it as if the season started today, here are the projected Week 1 starting lineups for all 32 teams, ranked in order of quality.

Offensive Overview: This ranking assumes all goes well with Griffin's right knee. By all accounts, his recovery thus far is "ahead of schedule." Returning all five offensive line starters, the Redskins pound defenses into submission with the run game. When RG3 is healthy, they also field a quick-strike, bomb-happy vertical passing attack that hit peak performance when Garcon was healthy last season. Davis, once a catch-first tight end, has developed into a plus run blocker and may make more of an impact there coming off a torn Achilles' tendon. The Skins haven't lost anyone from their top-five offense.

Defensive Overview: The Redskins' lone significant loss from last year's defense is CB DeAngelo Hall, who is maddeningly inconsistent in coverage and may return at a reduced rate anyway. Secondary deficiencies can also be masked by ferocious pass rush, and top edge rusher Orakpo is back from his torn pectoral. The front seven is strong, but the defensive backfield must still be addressed early and often in April's draft. Biggers, Gomes, and Meriweather are all borderline starters or worse. After the RG3 trade, Washington won’t draft in this year’s first round but has seven picks, beginning at No. 51.

It's fashionable for people to like the Seattle Seahawks right now. But, they are severely over rated. They had a good run (with some luck against the Green Bay Packers) but they were beaten pretty good against the Falcons--a better team--for most of that game, and the Redskins were steam rolling them until RGIII tweaked his knee. I don't see them as anything close to the best roster in the league.

I'd put them in the slot where the Chicago Bears are, maybe. But, my gut is they are a 1 year wonder.

The Hogster wrote:It's fashionable for people to like the Seattle Seahawks right now. But, they are severely over rated. They had a good run (with some luck against the Green Bay Packers) but they were beaten pretty good against the Falcons--a better team--for most of that game, and the Redskins were steam rolling them until RGIII tweaked his knee. I don't see them as anything close to the best roster in the league.

I'd put them in the slot where the Chicago Bears are, maybe. But, my gut is they are a 1 year wonder.

Something I noticed when comparing our game against them to the Falcon game against them - ATL jumped out to a big lead but ATL's guys were not open. It took perfect throws against very good coverage and great catches. In our game however we were running on them and hitting wide open guys until, as you say, Griff got hurt.

I thought Seattle was as good as or maybe better than ATL but I thought we were on the verge of dismantling Seattle before knee-gate.

The Hogster wrote:It's fashionable for people to like the Seattle Seahawks right now. But, they are severely over rated. They had a good run (with some luck against the Green Bay Packers) but they were beaten pretty good against the Falcons--a better team--for most of that game, and the Redskins were steam rolling them until RGIII tweaked his knee. I don't see them as anything close to the best roster in the league.

I'd put them in the slot where the Chicago Bears are, maybe. But, my gut is they are a 1 year wonder.

Something I noticed when comparing our game against them to the Falcon game against them - ATL jumped out to a big lead but ATL's guys were not open. It took perfect throws against very good coverage and great catches. In our game however we were running on them and hitting wide open guys until, as you say, Griff got hurt.

I thought Seattle was as good as or maybe better than ATL but I thought we were on the verge of dismantling Seattle before knee-gate.

I hope your gut is right because I pretty much hate them.

I hate them too. Their defense kept them in a lot of games. But, I don't think their corners will duplicate last season. Their size took people off guard this year, but the year before that was more indicative of what they are to me talent wise. Whenever guys go from being average to awesome, I always take a skeptical view, especially when Browner & Sherman got busted for PEDs. I'm betting that the 2011 Seattle secondary (which is the same group of guys, is more in-line with what they are.

Deadskins wrote:Sorry, but no way are the Shehawks the best team in the NFL right now, even with Percy Harvin.But...10. G-strings17. Cowpies25. Smeagols

Disagree. I think they'll be almost unbeatable unless hampered by injuries.

Just the opposite of your views on the Redskins. You sure you're not a closet Seattle fan?

I find it impossible to like a rival, even a little bit. One of my flaws. I'm focused on Seattle because they're the team for us to beat to get to the Super Bowl. Harvin adds a dimension to that team that can exploit our greatest weakness. Tate, Rice, Harvin--a nightmare for us, in particular, and enough, with their defense and QB, to beat everyone else. I'll say it again. We'll need RG3, Davis, Garcon, and others fully recovered.